Joseph
Sobran
is a nationally syndicated Washington DC columnist who ran
into political obstacles a few years back

Quick
navigation

The current war is a good
example. An emergency results from the government's abuse of
its powers, so the government claims new powers in order to
cope with the emergency.

November 24, 2001

The Lesser
Evil

by Joseph Sobran

ONCE, before appearing on a TV talk show, I was told I
must not advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S.
Government. I hadn't actually been planning to foment
revolution, but this warning gave me an idea: "May I
advocate the violent restoration of the Constitution?" I got
no answer.

Some people think I'm a "purist," or even a
"fundamentalist," for harping on the Constitution. Actually,
it's just the opposite. I'm willing to settle for the
Constitution as a tolerable compromise.

Really principled people, such as Lysander
Spooner, the late, great Murray Rothbard, and a
number of my living friends, consider the Constitution
itself tyrannical, endowing the Federal Government with far
too much power. (Don't tell the children, but so did
Patrick Henry.)

Joe
Sobran addresses a large audience during the dinner
cruise organised by David Irving's Real History on the
Ohio River, 2001

These are the real purists, and I honor them. My only
point is that even if they're right, returning to the
Constitution -- to a government strictly limited to its few
enumerated powers -- would be a huge improvement over the
kind of government we have now. At this point I'd gratefully
settle for that. I don't ask much.

All I ask, really, is that our rulers, alias elected
representatives, do that which they swear before Almighty
God, staking their immortal souls on the promise, that they
will do: uphold said Constitution. I think it's actually
rather patriotic -- and even charitable -- of me to hope
that our rulers will stop damning themselves. But this seems
to make me some sort of utopian.

Who ever heard of a politician going to heaven? These
gents (all right, there are a few ladies among them) think
an oath of office is something to be taken as lightly as,
say, a wedding vow.

They probably felt a deeper sense of obligation when they
took their college fraternity pledges.

Only one member of Congress seems to read the
Constitution and vote against proposed laws on grounds that
they lack constitutional authorization: the Texas Republican
Ron Paul. And he's considered a bit of a crank even
by his own party.

Whenever I read that the House has approved something by
a 434-to-1 vote, I check to see if the 1 is Ron Paul. It
usually is.

Of course the government has long since decided that the
Constitution must be interpreted with a certain latitude,
which always means letting the government stretch its own
powers as far as it pleases.

This is the familiar idea that
the Constitution is a "living document," which is to say,
a dead letter. How can it be "living" if it's mere putty
in the hands of the powerful?

Really living things resist manipulation. The
Constitution is supposed to control the government, not vice
versa. James Madison noted that the unwritten British
Constitution could be changed at any time by a simple act of
Parliament.

Our Constitution, he said, would be better because it was
an act of the people -- remember "We the People"? -- and
would be "unalterable by the government." Any amendment
would require very broad popular support. But today We the
People wait for the government -- often meaning five members
of the U.S. Supreme Court -- to decide what the Constitution
is going to mean.

After all, they're the experts. We the People are only
... people. And We the People don't protest, don't even
notice any incongruity, when we're assured that this rank
elitism is "democracy" and "self-government."

We nod solemnly when we should be issuing a hearty
horselaugh. The current war is a good example. An emergency
results from the government's abuse of its powers, so the
government claims new powers in order to cope with the
emergency.

And if you don't support these claims, you're
unpatriotic; if you think the government's foreign policy
helped create this mess, you're "blaming America first."

In other words, we are expected to equate an
unconstitutional government with the Constitution! Logic,
anyone?

Tyranny doesn't have to mean a grumpy dictator with a
funny mustache; it can be exercised by pleasant guys who
shave and smile. Its essence is lawless government --
government that makes countless laws because it recognizes
no law above itself.

Joseph Sobran is a
nationally-syndicated columnist, lecturer, and author. For
21 years he wrote for National Review magazine, including 18
years as a senior editor. He is now editor of the monthly
newsletter Sobran's (P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA
22183).